Work-related factors that impact social work practitioners’ subjective well-being: Well-being in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Summary: This research is among the first to analyze social work practitioners’ workplace subjective well-being (SWB), the social scientific concept of happiness. From an initial survey of 646 social workers, 13 respondents with the highest SWB scores were interviewed: a cohort that can teach us much about creating and sustaining SWB. • Findings: The following reports on one aspect of those qualitative findings: the work related factors that impact overall SWB. Researchers found that the respondents’ overall SWB was impacted by characteristics of their work environment (i.e. physical, cultural, and systemic), interrelationships at work (i.e. with clients, colleagues, and supervisors), and specific aspects of the job (i.e. factors associated with both workload and type of work). • Applications: The findings are discussed in relation to social work administration, and future research. There are implications for direct social work practitioners, managers, and educators, and in particular with regard to workplace environments that support social worker SWB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".